• luciferofastora@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    To further clarify: the transgression, according to the Guardian, wasn’t just removing waste, but the fact that “Powesland […] organised a team of volunteers to tackle the removal of litter, weed and silt from a section of the River Roding”, and they collectively “removed 200 bags of rubbish, branches and silt”, which goes beyond just picking up trash.

    The EA [Environmental Agency] alleges dredging has been carried out and waste has been left on site within the flood plain, constituting a flood risk activity under the regulations that would have required an environmental permit.

    Dredging is the act of removing material from the water environment, here presumably from the riverbed, which is a tad more involved than just picking up pieces of trash and might have ecological knock-on effects. I find it perfectly justified that the Environmental Agency would want to be involved in the decision to take such steps.

    The only real scandal is this guy having petitioned the Agency about the trash problem for years without success. That they’d now get pissed when someone takes the matter into his own hands is understandable, but might just be the only way to get them to care about the issue.

      • luciferofastora@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I mean, the agency doing nothing for so long does deserve some righteous indignation. Keep your pitchforks and torches, just make sure you torch for the right reasons.

        The headlines should reflect that better though.

      • luciferofastora@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Yeah, that’s where you go from helpful volunteers to reckless vigilantes. Shame that they couldn’t leave it at cleaning up.

        Also, shame that these articles bury the lede of “dug up the riverbed” for the sake of outrage.

        And of course, shame that it came to this at all.

    • TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Removing silt can be pretty bad in some cases, heavy metals sink to the bottom and will not cause problems if left undisturbed, if you start removing silt you will make those pollutants bioavailable again.

      • Bluewing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Even removing the branches and larger tree limbs can cause issues with removing habitat for aquatic critters and changes the currents and flow of the river.

        Cleaning the trash by hand and hauling it away is one thing. They went beyond that.

      • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        In this case the silt is a good share shit overflows from sewage releases though, which go unpunished I would add.

      • luciferofastora@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I wasn’t aware of that. I suspect the guy in question didn’t either. That’s why experts should make those decisions who do know that stuff.

        • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Do you think the government environmental agency is trustworthy? You do realize the neoliberals are in bed with big money.

          There is zero fucking chance of “experts” working in the public interest at the EA. 0%.

          • luciferofastora@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            60 minutes ago

            I mean, the agency did drag its feet until the guy got pissed enough to do something irresponsible. Doesn’t excuse his actions, nor does it make him an expert either.

            If he had an expert advising him on this course of action, cool. The articles don’t seem to mention it, and the articles prey on outrage, so saying “he even had an expert telling him to do so!” would have been worth a note.

            So if you’re right, we’ve got two bunches of idiots; one negligent in their inaction, the other reckless in their action.

          • stickly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            You don’t have to work for a three letter agency to be an expert. I guarantee you that if they took the time to consult anyone remotely connected to ecological science they would have said no to hacking up the river bed without a proper survey and sampling.